Tulip: Limited Atonement

[SpiritualMadMan]

WARNING THIS THREAD COULD GET HOT!

OK,

GE Posted this:

'TULIP' for:
'T' for Total Depravity of man ...
'U' for Unconditional Election ...
'L' for Limited Atonement ...
'I' for Irresistible Grace ...
'P' for Perseverance of the saints ...

Please explain how Christ's Sacrificial Death as the Lamp of God is "LIMITED".

 

[David Lamb]

Limited to those who believe on Him. The trouble is that the word "limited" has, in some people's minds, the idea of fewness. That is why many prefer the term "particular redemption", which is another way of saying what Jesus Himself said in John 10.14-15:

"I am the Good Shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I dont understand....why are you doing posts separately on TULIP. If you want to understand it, it should be discussed in total

 

[Thinkingstuff]

WARNING THIS THREAD COULD GET HOT!

OK,

GE Posted this:

'TULIP' for:
'T' for Total Depravity of man ...
'U' for Unconditional Election ...
'L' for Limited Atonement ...
'I' for Irresistible Grace ...
'P' for Perseverance of the saints ...

Please explain how Christ's Sacrificial Death as the Lamp of God is "LIMITED".

God didn't come to save all of mankind but only those elected to be saved.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here, try watching this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcEp9lmbdLY

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

............

Please explain how Christ's Sacrificial Death as the Lamp of God is "LIMITED".

GE:

Because Christ's Sacrificial Death as the Lamb of God is perfect and perfectly effective and in every case of Substitution successful to save for ever.

"That thy Son should give eternal life to AS MANY AS Thou hast given Him."
"I pray for THEM: I pray NOT for the world, but for them WHICH THOU hast given Me: FOR THEY ARE THINE."

"Holy Father, KEEP through THINE OWN Name THOSE WHOM Thou hast given Me."

"THOSE THAT Thou gavest Me I have KEPT; and NONE of THEM, is lost."

Jesus Christ would have FAILED and his "Sacrificial Death as the Lamb of God" would have been useless, were as many as ONE of the Father's lost. I in ONE case "Christ's Sacrificial Death as the Lamb of God" did not actually and forever SAVE, ALL sinners would have been lost for ever, and that is why I said in another discussion the word "world" in John 3:16 means the whole creation of God, the 'COSMOS'.

If the enemy could pluch ONE from the hand of Christ, he has plucked EVERYONE WITH HIM INTO PERDITION. Jesus Christ too.... horrible thought... banish the thought!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

GE:

Because Christ's Sacrificial Death as the Lamb of God is perfect and perfectly effective and in every case of Substitution successful to save for ever.

"That thy Son should give eternal life to AS MANY AS Thou hast given Him."
"I pray for THEM: I pray NOT for the world, but for them WHICH THOU hast given Me: FOR THEY ARE THINE."

"Holy Father, KEEP through THINE OWN Name THOSE WHOM Thou hast given Me."

"THOSE THAT Thou gavest Me I have KEPT; and NONE of THEM, is lost."

Jesus Christ would have FAILED and his "Sacrificial Death as the Lamb of God" would have been useless, were as many as ONE of the Father's lost. I in ONE case "Christ's Sacrificial Death as the Lamb of God" did not actually and forever SAVE, ALL sinners would have been lost for ever, and that is why I said in another discussion the word "world" in John 3:16 means the whole creation of God, the 'COSMOS'.

If the enemy could pluch ONE from the hand of Christ, he has plucked EVERYONE WITH HIM INTO PERDITION. Jesus Christ too.... horrible thought... banish the thought!

Just a point of contention to the verse you quoted. When you read the prayer in its entirety from John 17 you find verse 20 says this:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,

Its clear that there is a distinction between his disciples whom the initial prayer is for and the greater body of believers. So the verses you are quoting are for the disciples that he knows in his day the later part of the prayer is for all who avail themselves of belief. Therefore I think its a week passage to use for unconditional election. The verses you quote are specifically for the disciples and for their role played to forward the good news of the Gospel. To use it in the context as you have is misleading. Jesus isn't praying for the whole world at this point but notting its for is disciples who will spread the gospel message to the world. A distinctive point.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

I dont understand....why are you doing posts separately on TULIP. If you want to understand it, it should be discussed in total

The purpose is to bore-sight a specific point and to discuss it fully.

What I have found, so far, is that a lot of what I am hearing is Theological Jargon, mostly.

Or, very "cluttered" either in what is being said or in the lack of "white space".

At work... Can't get real in depth and still eat lunch.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The purpose is to bore-sight a specific point and to discuss it fully.

What I have found, so far, is that a lot of what I am hearing is Theological Jargon, mostly.

Or, very "cluttered" either in what is being said or in the lack of "white space".

At work... Can't get real in depth and still eat lunch.

Hey, I thought I was to the point. Without "Theological Jargon". But I did assume most know what I meant by elect.

 

[billwald]

TULIP was formulated long after Calvin was dead. Calvin probably would have rejected the concept. TULIP has become a Presbyterian big deal. It is generally ignored by Dutch Calvinists.

By the way, someone please explain "on" as in "Limited to those who believe on Him." "ON" seems to be a protestant Christian insider (gnostic) word. In the context of the quoted clause how does this use of "on" differ from "in?" Is there anything else in which one might believe "on" instead of "in?"

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Hey, I thought I was to the point. Without "Theological Jargon". But I did assume most know what I meant by elect.

Probably true, if I had had you specifically in mind.

But, please understand, I do come from an Armenian (sp?) Pentecostal background. So, you have to go r~e~a~l~ s~l~o~w

Be home in around 45 minutes.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The purpose is to bore-sight a specific point and to discuss it fully.

What I have found, so far, is that a lot of what I am hearing is Theological Jargon, mostly.

Or, very "cluttered" either in what is being said or in the lack of "white space".

At work... Can't get real in depth and still eat lunch.

GE:

...here ...if ever I have set eye on "Theological Jargon" wholly...

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Just a point of contention to the verse you quoted. When you read the prayer in its entirety from John 17 you find verse 20 says this: Quote:
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, Its clear that there is a distinction between his disciples whom the initial prayer is for and the greater body of believers. ............

GE:

You know as well as I do I could have quoted other Scriptures from other contexts with the same thrust of particular election as well.

Now to contend Jesus’ prayer where I quoted was for only the disciples and only in the verse you supplied was for others than the disciples namely the whole world, is ridiculous. Jesus prayed his WHOLE prayer for “the greater body of believers” of all times, places and kindred. Jesus in this sense was in fact “praying for the whole world” --- “the whole world” consisting of all and only of the Elect of God whom the Father had given the Son before the foundation of the world.

In any case, however the words of Jesus, “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message”, are divided between “them” the disciples and “those who will believe in Me through them” and interpreted, they stay words PRAYED FOR THE ELECT ONLY. Words that effectively EXCLUDE any other than “them” the disciples and “those who will believe in Me through them”.

And what have the Arminians availed, won they the case of John 17 for human sovereignty of free will? Have they won any honour to the Name and Sovereignty, Omnipotence and Goodwill of God? Or did they win a day for fallen, fatuous, degraded and depraved man and nature of man?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Probably true, if I had had you specifically in mind.

But, please understand, I do come from an Armenian (sp?) Pentecostal background. So, you have to go r~e~a~l~ s~l~o~w

Be home in around 45 minutes.

GE:

You asked; therefore:

'Armenian' is of the country Armenia;

'Arminian' is follower of Arminius.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

TULIP was formulated long after Calvin was dead. Calvin probably would have rejected the concept. TULIP has become a Presbyterian big deal. It is generally ignored by Dutch Calvinists.

By the way, someone please explain "on" as in "Limited to those who believe on Him." "ON" seems to be a protestant Christian insider (gnostic) word. In the context of the quoted clause how does this use of "on" differ from "in?" Is there anything else in which one might believe "on" instead of "in?"

GE:
Speak of linguistic jargon...
I am 'Afrikaans', 'Dutch' for the Americans. The prevailing virtually only 'Calvinism' in my country and among my people is 100% TULIP. My own, too!

The Netherlands' theologians for the larger part formed South Africa's
'orthodox Calvinism' along the lines of TULIP OSAS GRACE (which Calvinistic acronyms I have posted in the current threads).

The 'issue' of 'on' and 'in' is one of idiom and etymology simply.

 

[Tom Butler]

Here's one scripture verse which contributes to the Particular Atonement debate:

Isaiah 53:8 "He shall see the travail of his soul and be satisfied..."

This is from the Suffering Servant passage. I take this to mean that Jesus' death on the cross satisfied God's justice.

Jesus' death on the cross actually accomplished something, not made possible its accomplishment.

 

[billwald]

>GE:
>Speak of linguistic jargon...
I am 'Afrikaans', 'Dutch' for the Americans. The prevailing virtually only 'Calvinism' in my country and among my people is 100% TULIP. My own, too!

My only association is with the Christian Reformed Church www.crcna.org started by emigrants from the Netherlands to the US and Canada.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Here's one scripture verse which contributes to the Particular Atonement debate:

Isaiah 53:8 "He shall see the travail of his soul and be satisfied..."

This is from the Suffering Servant passage. I take this to mean that Jesus' death on the cross satisfied God's justice.

Jesus' death on the cross actually accomplished something, not made possible its accomplishment.

GE:

Good! Truth!

 

[Bro. James]

In type, The Great Flood, shows the Sovereignty of God and a Limited Atonement. God could have destroyed everything--it all belongs to Him. He chose to spare eight souls. Noah found grace...

When God took Israel into the promised land He had them destroy the idolatry. Is this limited atonement? They got is trouble when they did not follow His orders.

It is difficult to explain the billions of people who have traversed this planet never having heard the Gospel. Limited atonement would certainly be a possible answer.

Ephesians 1:4-14 indicates most petals of: tuLip.

Grace, Grace, wonderful Grace.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[quantumfaith]

TULIP was formulated long after Calvin was dead. Calvin probably would have rejected the concept. TULIP has become a Presbyterian big deal. It is generally ignored by Dutch Calvinists.

By the way, someone please explain "on" as in "Limited to those who believe on Him." "ON" seems to be a protestant Christian insider (gnostic) word. In the context of the quoted clause how does this use of "on" differ from "in?" Is there anything else in which one might believe "on" instead of "in?"

Bill

I think it boils down to whether you "go on the bus and in the car" or if you go "in the bus and on the car".